Super League succeeding as a TV sport

Im confused as to what people actually mean by 'the game undersells itself'.How?Its not like we dont have opportunity for sponsors to come on board, there are loads.

Just to be clear, the most interesting thing in the Wood/Rimmer Q&A today was when one of them said after listing the various SL sponsors that "It is important to note that we believe across the whole sport in 2013 there will be more commercial revenue than ever before."

It is also worth noting that Sky do not have a sponsor for their coverage this season, and that is nothing to do with the RFL. Sky Media started looking for sponsors late last year and were unable to find one. So if they can't attract one when they are a specialist advertising sales business it suggests any problems are with the current market and economy, not simply the RFL "underselling".

Incidentally, they claim their Super League coverage reach is "an estimated 4.8m Individuals, 1.7m of which are Abc1 Men."

No, not in the slightest. London, even with the Harlequins brand, didn't get the big bucks flowing in. Why on earth would you lose core and proven clubs for those that, to be polite, aren't. 10 guaranteed punters in Hull, Bradford or Castleford are worth 100 potential punters in those other places. Also, what's so special about Coventry, Bristol and Gloucester that would bring in money?

In a sport that is focusing so much on exspantion i thing the importance of bristol coventry and gloucester over HKR bradford and castleford is massive,why dont you think the same?.Bums on seats 'paying a proper price for the product' has clearly been irelevent over SKY tv money,how is that good long term?

Just to be clear, the most interesting thing in the Wood/Rimmer Q&A today was when one of them said after listing the various SL sponsors that "It is important to note that we believe across the whole sport in 2013 there will be more commercial revenue than ever before."

It is also worth noting that Sky do not have a sponsor for their coverage this season, and that is nothing to do with the RFL. Sky Media started looking for sponsors late last year and were unable to find one. So if they can't attract one when they are a specialist advertising sales business it suggests any problems are with the current market and economy, not simply the RFL "underselling".

Incidentally, they claim their Super League coverage reach is "an estimated 4.8m Individuals, 1.7m of which are Abc1 Men."

In a sport that is focusing so much on exspantion i thing the importance of bristol coventry and gloucester over HKR bradford and castleford is massive,why dont you think the same?.
Bums on seats 'paying a proper price for the product' has clearly been irelevent over SKY tv money,how is that good long term?

A known and proven product is 100 times more valuable than an unknown.

Where would the crowds come from to replace the thousands at the clubs you'd abandon? The union clubs off-season or converts? Didn't work too well with a very integrated Harlequins and it's not anywhere near RL heartlands that can gather crowds because it's a rugby league game.

Where would the backers come to keep the club going? I read a couple of years ago that a typical Super League club needs an absolute minimum of £2m revenue per season to just keep the doors open, never mind succeed. That's a lot of money to come from nowhere. RU has many many examples of wannabe sugar daddies who aren't proper rugby union men who come in and can't buy success within a couple of seasons then walk away to their next toy or dramatically cut their funding. HKR, Bradford and Cas all have sufficient incomes that they can scrape by with minimum investment (just, mind you).

Top end stadia that can take the big clubs and big games?

I could keep going but then you just need to look at London for the massive efforts, and financial backing, that has gone into a club that still struggles in what should really be a fertile recruiting ground for rugby league.

Don't get me wrong, I think the efforts that Bristol, Coventry and Gloucester have made to enhance and expand rugby league have been astonishing with all credit to the clubs, supporters and players BUT they're just not SL material and won't be for the foreseeable future. Even if they were fast tracked then what would be left of the original club? Nothing. They'd have to replace every single player, the coaching staff, the management, ground and everything that went into building them into the proper rugby clubs that they are now. I'd not want to sacrifice all of that work for a gamble on an unproven area with none of the infrastructure needed for SL level rugby.

Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway

So the bottom line roughly is if you want to talk about CC clubs getting in SL they'll need to find at least a £Million a year just to come bottom.

Yes the Championships are truly a place where you can "build for Superleague".

Oddly enough there seems to be about eight clubs who can fund Superleague competitively, and six who merely tread water. The change to 2 x 12 and 3 x 8 seems to me to be a recognition that the finances are too unbalanced in SL hence the bottom clubs are unravelling. Being sent off mid season to play the championship clubs seems to be their punishment for not competing.

Should have gone for 30 Stobart trailers - Undersell is an under statement when you consider that promotion to the premier division from the championship for the champions is worth in the region of £120 million and £90 million to the winner of the play-off final.

I attended a conference yesterday (Thursday) at Headingley on the subject of 'Effective Commercial Partnerships.' in both codes of rugby.

One of the speakers was John Stainer, of the Repucom company, which undertakes market research, media evaluation and analyses market intelligence from 20 offices dotted around the world.

He made an interesting comparison of Super League's TV audience with those of the RBS Six Nations and the Aviva Premiership.

He pointed out that in the most recent complete seasons, the Six Nations audience had increased by 7%, the Aviva Premiership by 4%, but Super League's audience had increased by 19%.

Not only that, but his company had done major surveys of the audience for the two codes of rugby, and found that Rugby League supporters are particularly keen to embrace new products and, more importantly, are naturally inclined to buy the products of any sponsor that comes on board to back Rugby League.

He also found that the wider public associates qualities with Rugby League that are almost wholly positive - ranging from teamwork, discipline, toughness, athleticism and so on. The public impression of Rugby League is generally much more positive than it is of football, for example.

So it looks as though Rugby League is a sponsor's dream.

It prompted me to ask the obvious question of why, if all that is true, Rugby League appears to perform so badly commercially.

"Rugby League undersells itself," was his rather simple answer.

But it does make you think!

There will be more in Rugby League Express on Monday.

Carlsberg don't do Soldiers, but if they did, they would probably be Brits.